[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



why the fuck are people using film cameras in 2019?
>>
>>3466031
digital is souless
>>
>>3466031
Because film shots look cool and developing at home is fun.
>>
>>3466031
I don't use film but I do shoot wet plate colloidon.
Why, because hpsters love that shit and I am able to make money off it.
>>
>>3466031
why the fuck do people breath through their mouths in 2019?
>>
>>3466031
Why not? Is there some issue in using 35mm film camera instead of cheapo digital with sensor the size of fingernail? Is there a problem with B&W film and its reproductive properties? Then is there a problem with MF film cameras not costing as bloody much as digital counterparts?
It’s gear that is less convenient in difficult environment , yet its really pleasing to use in appropriate one.
Or maybe you are just a sensorlet.
My favorite explanation is this: Film forces people to think and plan before the very act of pressing shutter release. And I rather look at potentially low-res hi-grain photo than at overprocessed portrait, because people try to rectify their mistakes instead of avoiding them in the first place. Work = digital FF, Personal craft = whatever I need to get things the way I visualize them.
>>
Immense dynamic range without pushing shadows into an ugly noisy mess. Every filmmaker knows this, some are just too poor / low talent to use film.

True medium format not digicuck super-35 sensors

Large format field cameras with movements (See Alex Burke's work - you must be new here)

Film cameras hold or accumulate value where digishit just goes into the landfills

Silver gelatin prints

Getting blown by college girls after taking talentless photos of them on Kodak gold and them thinking you are a genius before they have even seen the images, which they won't, because you ghost them after
>>
i find it enjoyable
>>
Is nobody else bothered by the fact that there is no cartridge in the camera in OP picture and all the film is basically ruined?
>>
>>3466031
For some it’s more fun than digital. For some it’s cheaper than digital. For some it is higher quality than digital. Pretty much everyone shooting film fits into one or two of those three.
>>
>>3466168
Film stock photos are hilarious. My favourite is one with a woman holding a TLR up to her eye like an SLR, like she’s just looking at the flat metal back.
>>
>>3466165
>Immense dynamic range without pushing shadows into an ugly noisy mess. Every filmmaker knows this, some are just too poor / low talent to use film.

Incorrect. Modern digital cameras have 2-3 stops dynamic range over the average color film. Grant it you will need to know what you are doing (both in digital and film) to take advantage of that range but digital different wins out here. It's also easier to manage in digital.

>True medium format not digicuck super-35 sensors
Yes medium format still has more resolution. This advantage is marred by accessibility to lenses and scanners that can take advantage of the greater resolution. This problem used to be somewhat moot when darkroom printing was more common as it would take better advantage of this aspect of film but options for printing in the darkroom are a joke now.

>Large format field cameras with movements (See Alex Burke's work - you must be new here)
TS lenses exist you know. Movements are also not useful for most work. There's adapters to give medium format cameras movements but they were never that widely adopted because it just wasn't useful for most applications. This is why movements today remain delegated off to a few lenses for when it is necessary.

>Film cameras hold or accumulate value where digishit just goes into the landfills
Sure if you have the right film camera. The vast majority are trash. Same is true with digital equipment.

>Silver gelatin prints
Also sure if they made well. I would argue some of the alternative printing processes for black and white negatives would be a stronger argument for film advantage, particularly platinum printing. However reproducibility is a real issue. For some of the really stellar printing processes cost can be an issue as well. Though if you are shooting color negative you literally have 2 real choices for color paper. That's it. If you are shooting color positive then you can get fucked. There isn't a paper for it anymore.
>>
>>3466031
There's plenty to enjoy about the process.

Film is mostly useless in any sort of real commercial application except for a few niches. Last I checked archival work for the feds still has to be done on black and white 8x10. They had that bridge commission some years back that made them do that. I think there was a national park job that was similar maybe two years ago that opened up.

Hobbyists enjoy it for plenty of reasons. There is a certain magic the first time you see an image appear in the darkroom and film can lead to entertaining surprises. Certain films hold an aesthetic that does well in the fine art world. Similarly labeling it film (or any of the old processes) makes the work feel more unique or hands on in creation which is like cocaine in the art world.

People on the internet raving about it for no real reason also helps perpetuate it. Film is on its way out. A lot important films and darkroom papers are dead. They are not coming back (I'm looking at you kodachrome and cibachrome). As the market continues to shrink the options will continue to be reduced. Some sort of film will probably zombie on for quite sometime as long hipsters enjoy 35mm.
>>
>>3466031
Why do people draw or paint in 2019? Why do people ride horses in 2019? Why do people still have sex instead of IVF?
>>
>>3466172
>If you are shooting color positive then you can get fucked. There isn't a paper for it anymore.
Seriously? Your only real option is what? Digitizing?
>>
>>3466193
The market isn’t shrinking dude, it’s growing. It nearly died in the 00s but it’s experiencing a year-on-year increase now. And film stocks are being released at a faster rate than they’re disappearing. The reason Kodachrome is gone isn’t because there’s no market for it, it’s because the K17 process is ridiculously expensive, difficult and time-consuming. Kodachrome died with E6 slide film. Which is itself experiencing a resurgence in popularity (Ektachrome).

>>3466190
>Modern digital cameras have 2-3 stops dynamic range over the average color film
And the best films have 2-3 stops more range than the *average* digital camera. Don’t compare a 5D to Kodak Gold, compare it to Portra.

>The vast majority are trash. Same is true with digital equipment.
No it isn’t. All digital gear devalues with time almost without exception. In a hundred years, with good care all my cameras will still be working and serviceable, and worth a lot more than they are today. You can’t say the same about any digital gear.
>>
>>3466202
LOL
>>
>>3466193
>Film is mostly useless in any sort of real commercial application except for a few niches.

When will you learn that it's just a different medium to store images? To think it can disappear is very narrow and mistaken view. In art you have people still shooting daguerreotypes, for heavens sake! And they were in fact dead for decades. It's commercially shot in fashion, editorial, arhitecture and even in sports venues. It's not a case of few old guys clinging to it, it's new people embracing it.
It's not as profitable as it was, and never again will be, but as long as there is one person willing to shoot it, he'll find a way. Everything is documented, patents have long come into public domain, if apocalypse happens tomorrow, and erases every manufacturer from the planet tomorrow, a guy in his garage will figure a way to manufacture it, and with internet, global economy, and mail in full swing, he'll have a market.
>>
I am in art academia, and film as the other anon said is like cocaine to these people
>>
>>3466031
I already had it because it was my father's camera, and buying a few rolls and having them developed and printed was more manageable from an economic standpoint than getting a DSLR. Now I want to get a digital camera tho, because shooting in large volumes with film just doesn't make economic sense.
>>
>>3466031
>why the fuck are people using film cameras in 2019?
It's a millennial thing. So is vinyl records.
>>
>>3466170
>cheaper than digital
How does that figure?
>>
>>3466228
See >>3466225
People might already own a film camera or buy one for literal pennies. High quality lenses sell for a few dozen bucks, whereas the digital-compatible equivalent are usually an order of magnitude more expensive. If your local lab is half decent, shooting film for some personal special event will leave you with good looking prints for a very reasonable price.

Film is expensive due to recurrent expenses, but it has an infinitely lower entrance fee than digital, and spending 30€ once in a while for 72 prints might be better for someone's pockets than spending 300€ immediately on a digital camera that won't see much use.
>>
>>3466228
Back when I first started shooting I had an initial investment of £30 for a camera and £20 for a scanner, while stock and dev each cost about £3 a time. That would take me a decade to spend as much as a half-decent DSLR and lens would cost.

Nowadays I shoot for print so obviously spend a load more. Maybe 2k gear value and £200 a year on stock and dev. Which still isn’t much considering what new DSLRs cost, and how quickly they devalue.
>>
Because I'm not reliant on a battery that needs recharging and can take my 38-39 photos in full frame resolution and image quality/dof/huge exposure latitude at leisure on long trips, with a tiny light pocketable camera I can carry everywhere without burdening myself with a dedicated bag/etc.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
>>
>>3466031
>Amazing colors and dynamic range that simply cannot be reproduced with digital
>no need to spend hours doing post over and over. Simply switch film stock for a different look
>pro tier bodies and lens can be had for cheap
>great learning tool for beginners (manual)
>quality over quantity
>excellent camera build
>cheaper than digital if you don't shoot much
>simple
>>
Posting in a bait thread
>>
>>3466190

> Dynamic range of colour negative film is so immense that it is almost impossible to overexpose. Digital highlights are blown out and lost in a matter of stops. With digital, the idea is 'recovery' of highlight and shadow details, whereas colour negative immediately establishes these details without further requirements for pushing, which results in grain. As I said, this is why the greatest cinematographers will always work on film if they can, because they never have to be constantly checking for zebras / histograms or relying on post processing to expose a scene properly.

> Resolution

These lenses are available, and anything from my 1950s Rolleiflex to my 2006 Bronica RF645 outresolves any digital camera I have ever used. As Burke has shown, even a flatbed scan has more potential than most digital files. If you aren't poor, a coolscan or equivalent is a sound investment.

> TS lenses are not a substitute for having separate rear / front tilt, shift and rise to correct perspective. Read 'The Camera'. Tilt shift lenses are also expensive and extremely limited in supply and variety, something you overlook but highlighted in your own argument against film cameras. In field cameras, any lens with sufficient coverage can employ these movements.

> Investment; it doesn't matter it you are buying trash if it is still worth the pennies you bought it for in years to come. For those who are actually commited to photography, you can get a Hassy for around $750 with the 80mm Planar and a back, which will last a lifetime and never depreciate.

> Prints are what you make of them, traditional methods still exist even if variety is limited and retain a sense of aura for collectors, otherwise you can just drum scan + print from digital file if you want consistency.

TL/dr film is a superior medium that is inherently higher skill curve and fewer safety nets for amateurs
>>
>>3466275
>TL/dr film is a superior medium that is inherently higher skill curve and fewer safety nets for amateurs
>Color film is impossible to over expose
>Film takes more skill

heh
>>
>>3466264
You’re claiming these arguments ‘aren’t arguments’ without anything to say to the contrary. What makes what you’re saying more valid if you can’t be bothered to give a proper response?

e.g.
>>Amazing colors and dynamic range that simply cannot be reproduced with digital
>This is just not true.
The unique look of certain films cannot be consistently recreated digitally. The idea that there is a preset out there which accurately recreates the signature characteristics of Ektar, Provia, Velvia etc. is just ignorance of the highest calibre and exactly the kind of thing I’ve come to expect on this board.

Also gonna bite at another one
>excellent camera build
There are countless film bodies out there which will still be functioning in hundreds of years and feel every bit as great as when they were made. How many digital bodies can you say that for?
>>
>>3466228
Because not everyone shoots 50 pics a day, anon.
>>
>>3466152
>35mm film instead of cheapo digital with sensor the size of a fingernail
35mm film gets matched or surpassed by m43 and APS-C digital sensors. Modern full frame absolutely buries it in dynamic range, resolution and low light capability. MF film is also challenged heavily by high res FF digital unless you're using something like a Mamiya 7 and drumscanning it in. MF digital is on another level compared to full frame and shouldn't even be compared to MF film. It's closer to 4x5 if anything.
>>
>>3466278

> He thinks that high dynamic range is foremost a safety net and not a creative tool to create complex scenes in a single clean exposure

This is why your mind is small. Go back to chimping live view and associated visual aids while the rest of us play with the big boys' toys.
>>
>>3466305
That would be a problem except I shoot 6x9
>>
digital will never be able to replikate the look and character of bw film

i don´t use film because it´s technical superior to digital, i just prefer the look.
it forces you to take a different aproach to photography when using an old manual camera.
you need to take care of every step in taking a picture instead of relying on automatic functions.
and printing in the darkroom is much more fun than editing in photoshop and lightroom.

i still like to shoot digital, and it´s definately more efficient and convienient. bi also feel like i take better pictures with my digital cameras since i got into shooting film
>>
>>3466248
>38-39 photos
All at one ISO setting vs a digital camera that can shoot hundreds on one battery in varying light conditions.

>full frame resolution
If you're comparing it to a 12 MP D700 or something, sure.

>huge exposure latitude
I really wish film goers would quit conflating the ability to over expose highlights and not lose detail with "huge exposure latitude". That would imply you could underexpose heavily and still recover in post but that's simply not the case. I'd argue it's worse, since over-exposing requires you to increase shutter time, which also adds the risk of camera shake or makes you need a tripod.
>>
>>3466152
>My favorite explanation is this: Film forces people to think and plan before the very act of pressing shutter release.
Nobody is pointing a gun at your skull and demanding you lock your digital camera in burst mode, so you can take every horrible snapshot or redundant image possible. In other words, if you can't slow down and think about your shots, that's a personal discipline issue. It's not the camera's fault.

>And I rather look at potentially low-res hi-grain photo than at overprocessed portrait, because people try to rectify their mistakes
There's no polishing turds, but I'd rather get the shot right, especially if I had to travel a lot, do a lot of planning etc. in order to execute it. Nobody viewing the final result is really going to care if you looked at the back of the screen and had to re-shoot it because the first shot was blurry or crooked or ill composed. The final result is what matters.
>>
i still don´t get why you people keep on fighting over this.
there´s nothing wrong with either shooting film or digital. it´s two different approaches both have their pros and cons. shoot whatever medium you prefer
>>
>>3466282
>the scientists responsible for developing, reproducing and manufacturing film stocks could not possibly reliably duplicate their efforts in the digital realm
Why is this exactly? You haven't really explained why, you're just saying "no u"
>>
>>3466031
To be different, they think it's a hobby
>>
>>3466325
What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

You can fix color balance in post. You can image stack with any camera. A camera with less dynamic range than another, can't have more dynamic range in post unless you do exposure stacking (which is limited to completely stationary scenery, and became virtually obsolete as a method for capturing high contrast scenes when the original D800 came out like 7 years ago). You also can't fix things like blurry/misfocused/out of focus images in post - there's software that claims to do it like Adobe's shake reduction but it's pretty bad. Like film, with digital you want the best possible "negative" (RAW), and ideally want to get everything right in camera. Whether you had to double-take the shot to adjust for an error is not an issue; like I said, all that matters is the final result.
>>
https://deadcameras.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/agfa-precisa100-130515-31.jpg

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:04:18 22:36:18
Image Width1080
Image Height717
>>
>>3466319
Because this is 4chan and fags fight for the sake of fighting. Underfucked basement dwellers that don't know what to do with their spare time.
>>
>>3466202
The general trend has been down since the advent of digital and will continue to slide until film reaches a level similar to other alternative process (perhaps somewhat higher?). The majority of film stocks being 'released' are modifications of other existing films and not really new films. From the larger companies we are seeing some updating of films (which is nice) and kodak did bring back ektachrome which is interesting but nothing truly new.

The greatest selection of films are stuck in 35mm format because of that currently it the most profitable size. However as well documented at this point 35 is not format useful to vast majority of commercial photographers. It is a format dominated by enthusiasts and artists neither of which is likely to maintain a sustainable market.

>because the K17 process is ridiculously expensive
It's k14.

>And the best films have 2-3 stops more range than the *average* digital camera.
DRs established by reputable testers say that color film come out to around 10 stops, 13 with the right conditions and processing. Kodak itself stated 13 was a good estimation of film dynamic range. Modern camera sensors hit 13 easily with many now in the 14 stop range. The nikon d850 for full frame cameras currently has the highest rating at 14.8 stops for instance. This also before applying hdr techniques which will easily dominate any film.

So no, color film does not have a superior dynamic range.
>>
>>3466204
The problem with film that creation of it more labor intensive and difficult to manufacture. If the apocalypse did happen tomorrow and the equipment needed for the creation of modern film was destroyed it would be extremely unlikely for it start up again. I can reasonably create a lot of the early processes in my own home with relatively primitive equipment. The same is not true for modern film. This is well documented and discussed. I'm not just making this up. Some form of it will zombie on like the older processes but not any real commercial sense. You also missed the point of the statement you quoted.

The point is that as the industry continues its established trend way from digital the availability of film will decline and more niche. Just like the older processes.
>>
>>3466248
I can tell you don't shoot film.... Because film cameras still use batteries
>>
>>3466031

Hipsters.
>>
Personally, i just dont like post-processing to get the look im after. Anything more than dust removal, cropping, and some curve adjustments is beyond me. Its much easier to just pop in a film stock with the look im after then do some minor pp

Plus you cant beat the highlight/shadow roll off of film imo.
>>
>>3466433
Just shoot in jpg with baked in camera styles.
>>
>>3466429
maybe he shoots with a camera old enough to lack a meter?

>>3466198
The last paper for slide films was ciba/ilfochrome which was discontinued in 2012. It's been entertaining watching one of favorite contemporary photographers, Richard Learoyd, deal with this. He used it straight, no film, at full size.

>>3466260
pretty much what ac said.

>>3466275
Color film caps out around 13 stops. This was stated by kodak. Modern cameras hit 13 and 14 easy, we'll probably see 15 in a year or two and that isn't taking into account hdr.

>These lenses are available, and anything from my 1950s Rolleiflex to my 2006 Bronica RF645 outresolves any digital camera I have ever used.

Old lenses out resolving modern lenses is largely a myth. An old tiresome myth at that. Sure you can pull out a full golden examples but overall your statement is the perpetuation of a myth. However certain old lenses do have a different effect or look associated with them than be enjoyable and this is an excellent reason to adapt older lenses. I'm hunting for a good (but inexpensive) petzval lens with 8x10 coverage for this very reason.

>ts stuff
How many people need movements let alone rear and front movements? Large format has also seen the greatest decline in film choices as well. Further economics of shooting large format film because crazy for most applications. For example, ektar 4x5 runs $3.6 per photograph before processing. Ektar at 8x10 runs $18 per shot. Digital camera bodies do decline in cost, lenses less so. I buy and sell lenses all the time and watch the prices. Good lenses hold value just fine. Film lenses are largely the same. A good film lens will hold value just fine. If it's old enough and as a result rare enough it can increase in value over time (from a modern purchasing point). I will be interested to see how high end modern lenses fair. I predict a slide similar to that of film with a stabilizing of pricing as the copies of the lens fall in number.
>>
cont.

>>3466275
> Prints are what you make of them, traditional methods still exist even if variety is limited and retain a sense of aura for collectors, otherwise you can just drum scan

Printing methods are becoming more limited. Particularly with color. We have two real color negative papers left, fuji crystal archive and kodak endura. For color positive we have nothing. For black and white paper positive we have one. Black and white from negative there's plenty still kicking around but the selection is declining.

Drum scanning is unavailable for most film users. I am unsure why you would this as an example. Further complicating your stance is the lack of development of new drum scanners. The closest thing we have to an update to drum scanning would be the flextites which are hilariously expensive. They were released 13 years ago in 2006. Don't get me wrong they are nice and you can dig a lot out with them (i've used both models) but at $17k and $25k they have a very limited market.

>TL/dr film is a superior medium that is inherently higher skill curve and fewer safety nets for amateurs
This a reprehensible statement and stance. Superiority through barrier to entry is an incorrect assumption.
>>
>five pre-diaspora Earth Minutes

I am 100% stealing this AC. I'm sorry.
>>
>>3466437
I have an x100t and do this, as well as custom color profiles that can be found online for fujis to mimic certain films (ektar, portra etc). Still not the same.
>>
>>3466315
I love how you ignored the main reasons I listed and went for a semantics battle with abstract non-real-life-applicable theoretical strawmen.
The fact you have this arbitrary tribalism and artificial divide in your head is sad. I feel this is futile, but let me reply:
>All at one ISO setting vs a digital camera that can shoot hundreds on one battery in varying light conditions.
The whole point is to have a daytime daylight pocketable snapper. Why the fuck would I need astro/nightvision-tier extreme versatility on a day trip outdoors? I have my 24mp apsc mirrorless for that stuff. It's bigger, heavier, more inconvenient.

>If you're comparing it to a 12 MP D700 or something, sure.
What's the resolution of photos you upload online/show to people?

>That would imply you could underexpose heavily and still recover in post but that's simply not the case.
No, it doesn't. You implied that. All I care about is being able to shoot a sunny scene against a sky and have image detail from shadows to the strongest highlights all in one shot, without any extra work. Indoor photos that still show what's outside a window - stuff digishit shits itself on without extra steps.

Keep ignoring that it's the ergonomics and convenience during shooting that matter. Keep talking like this is a black and white one-or-the-other polarising scenario. Film has its uses, digital has its uses, I use both, for different things.
>>
>>3466323
Give me one example of a classic film stock look which has been accurately recreated digitally.

Oh, you can’t? Because it hasn’t been done. Hmm. Guess while that’s true my argument holds up.

>>3466420
Portra has consistently been shown to have upwards of 16 stops. Marketing estimations count for nothing, especially ones concerning generic ‘colour film’.

>>3466451
>You're conflating "Build quality" with "Long-term repairability".
Well let’s address them separately.

>build quality
If you mean practical build quality, then there are plenty of film cameras out there which are nigh-on indestructible in comparison to digital bodies which, although ‘weatherproofed’ are still susceptible to breaking through impact damage or general wear to buttons and screen. Cameras like the M3 are legendary for their hardiness and reliability, while still being beautifully designed and a joy to use.

>repairability
The point isn’t just that my grandkids will be able to use my cameras, it’s than I know I will be able to use them for the rest of my life. As you mentioned this doesn’t apply to electronic film cameras, but I don’t use them because as you say when that shit breaks and there are no spare circuit boards, it’s gone forever. That applies to every digital cameras. And no, in two hundred years we’re not going to be 3D printing D850 sensors, that’s an insane idea. But we will have the capacity to make a spring, or a ball bearing, or a screw, to fix a mechanical camera. And somewhere out there there will always be someone who’s able to do that.
>>
Because digital is really fucking boring.
>>
>>3466569
no, it's because you're boring. seriously, are you stupid or just retarded?
>>
>>3466305

There are no practical reasons to use film desu Digital is better in IQ on all levels. But personally I just enjoy the process.

I shot an entire Japan vacation on film. Before I would take hundres of shots each day and all were shit. Now I took 36, and they were still pretty bad, but at least i didnt loose so much time doing it.

Cheers
>>
>>3466651
>Digital is better in IQ on all levels
This is a /p/ meme and isn’t true.
>>
>>3466685
I guess you fell for a troll.
>>
>>3466685
>>3466687

I`m gonna be honest here, I really thought digital was better in IQ from an objective viewpoint, I never bothered to check. Not that it would change anything about how I use it. YMMV
>>
>>3466695
I guess there's at least one obvious point against your claim, long exposure. You can make use of the reciprocity failure and film won't heat like sensors tend to do. The second one is that film indeed preserves highlights better where digital preserves shadows more easily. Neither of those points make a huge effect and both can be worked around.
Sometimes I hear the argument that mechanical non-electrical cameras are better for extreme temperature, however, film definitively withstands this. Heat advances the chemical process/aging and cold makes it brittle.
>>
>>3466701
>withstands
*retorts
>>
>>3466701
Or just don't use stupidly long exposures and exposure stack...
>>
>>3466719
>For usable detail, even an old 12MP full frame can outresolve 6x7 with most films
Sorry, think I must be misreading this but you seem to be implying the effective resolution of 6x7 is less than 12MP. Which would be an insane thing to say, so please correct me.
>>
>>3466031
Larger film/sensors get the most out of your glass, 35mm film is the cheapest way to full-frame, medium format is even larger than that.
Film can expose forever with no issues, making it great for landscape at night where your exposure is basicly unlimited.
Also film is getting better as well, for example Addox CMS-20 resolves 800 lines/mm, calculated for 35mm film this reults in the equivalent of over 500 megapixels.
They also sell it in medium format, but I'm not sure where that kind of resolution even makes any sense at all, not that my glass or scanner would be even nearly good enough to use its full potential.
>>
3466533
>semantics battle
It's not my fault you cannot properly articulate.

>ignored the main reasons
What? No I did not.

>theoretical strawmen
Yeah, no. Needing to change ISO after you move indoors or the sun goes down is not abstract or theoretical. Neither is the fact that your "full frame resolution" camera gets buried by any actual full frame digital camera from the past five years.

>the whole point is to have a daytime snapper
You never said this. You just said "38-39 shots without a battery". And I mentioned the limitations you faced with this. Oh but of course, who *needs* to worry about changing light conditions? Who needs to shoot in anything *other* than in bright sunlight, outdoors?

>what's the resolution of photos you upload?

What resolution do you upload in? Talk about hypotheticals and strawmen. My point is that 35mm film was thoroughly surpassed in resolution since the D800 came out, arguably even before that with the 5D II.

>no it doesn't
That's exactly what it implies.

>being able to expose and have all the detail shown
Digital can do this too but you already know that.

>extra steps
Compared to unloading film and spending half an hour developing and drying it before you either scan or hand print it. Oh no I had to spend 2 mins putting files on a computer and moving a slider in camera RAW, the fucking horror.

>ergonomics and convenience
Yes the convenience of being stuck at one ISO speed, having no image preview, having to change film every few dozen shots, so fucking convenient.
>>
>>3466031
To be contrarian shit bags while covering up their lack of talent with an 'aesthetic.'
>>
>>3466248
And yet you've never taken a good photo you scrawny pole.
>>
>>3466782
Nah this is just what digifags want to believe. It really doesn't matter what you gear you use it's about the photo it's self.
>>
>>3466792
Irrelevant point
>>
For me, its the experience.

I like tactile experiences, digital is less tactile in almost every way.
I buy physical media and choose my input devices based upon how clicky their buttons are.

I like loading and unloading film from my camera, and I love the way the film advance lever feels, and electronic shutters just cant even compare to that mechanical slap that an SLR mirror makes when it fires.

I also have to mention the absolute magical feeling I get when I pull slide film from my development tank. There’s just nothing like the feeling of holding your creation in your hands and the and observing the incredible rich of colors digital displays have yet to recreate.

When I shoot film, I feel happy.
>>
>ignored the main reasons
>What? No I did not.
Yes you did literally all your points were arbitrary read the Kurwa's original post again, most of your points in your second reply are arbitrary too

>>3466740
>who *needs* to worry about changing light conditions?
Using ISO 400 film in Sunny 16 is F/16 @1/500th., using it Indoors is about a 10 stop difference so f/2 @ /30th. How is this a problem? And what is flash?
I never have this issue what so ever. If I'm going out and I know I'm going to have changing lighting conditions I pack ISO 400 or higher film, if not I stick with ISO 100.

>having no image preview,
Found the anxiety ridden chimpanzee guys

>having to change film every few dozen shots
Same can be said with changing SD cards or batteries on a digi cam. It's really not an issue at all most film shooters aren't ravenous snapshitters shooting in burst mode, so having to take 20 seconds out of their life every now and again to load a new roll isn't really an inconvenience. I myself go through maybe 2 rolls if I'm out shooting all day and even so I'm struggling to get through the second roll. A roll of film is no bigger than a DSLR battery to having to carry a second roll isn't an inconvenience

>My point is that 35mm film was thoroughly surpassed in resolution
Whats the point of that resolution if you're gonna upload it it at a lower resolution? 35mm looks absolutely fine for web posting, It really depends on what it was scanned with though, a consumer Plustek 8100 gets me images more then well suitable for web posting and prints up to 16x24 inches. Using a drum scanner would get even more resolution out of the negative.This also depends on what film you're using.
Obviously if you're a professional and need more resolution to blow up really big prints a higher megapickled and or bigger medium format digital camera would do or even medium format or large format film w/ Vevlia, Provia or Portra would do.

Ultimately an Olympus XA is perfect for Kurwa's needs
>>
File: qc2dx0u07wvx.jpg (68 KB, 900x596)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>3466031
I hate how thread like these always turn into "but muhh resolution"
35mm has been used as the standard for decades. A photo back then still looks good today. I don't see a point in buying anything better than a 24mp full frame camera as you're not going to be displaying the images taken with it anywhere that even resolves that much resolution, for professional work obviously higher end gear is more acceptable but not absolutely necessary.
Using dynamic range to justify your favor or either side just goes to show your ineptitude as a photographer, you should always get it right in camera before thinking about post processing.
>>
>>3466812
>>3466812
>arbitrary
Nah, just because it doesn't agree with you does not make it arbitrary.

>ISO 400
>sunny 16
I don't want to stop down to the diffraction fest that is f/16 so I can shoot ISO 400 in daylight, especially when i don't have to. Nor do I have to blow the aperture wide open to f/2 and deal with soft corners and having less in focus than I desire. I swear, only film zealots would argue that not being able to change ISO from one exposure to the next is somehow a non-issue for everyone just because they don't have issues with their snapshots.

>if I know I'm going out and have changing lighting conditions
Great, but you are not everyone. The points are not "arbitrary" in the slightest, you've had to find a workaround. Not being able to change ISO from one exposure to the next is a limitation, whether you like it or not.

>having no image preview
It's really fun to go make an exposure you think is awesome only to realize something's fucked up when you get done developing it and the moment is long gone.

>changing SD cards
In an age where a 64GB card is $15?
>batteries
After hundreds or thousands of shots, not 36.

>what's the point of that resolution if you're gonna upload it lower?
What's the fucking point of bragging about your "full frame resolution pocket camera" if you're gonna argue about jpegs on the internet when I bring up the fact that 35mm roll film is not equal to a modern, high resolution full frame D-SLR.
>>
>>3466814
>I don't see a point in buying anything better than a 24mp full frame

D810 and D850 have a more robust build quality and larger feature set than the D750 and D610. A camera is a complete package of ergonomics, usability and practicality, not just the image sensor or film.
>>
>>3466826
>A camera is a complete package of ergonomics, usability and practicality, not just the image sensor or film.
Obviously but that's not the point I was making.
>>
>>3466814
>35mm
>not medium format
pleb
>>
>>3466444
There are film cameras that have a meter and no batteries. For example I have a Kodak retina reflex iv. It's completely analog only with a selenium meter
>>
>>3466849
35mm has been the consumer standard since it's inception
>>
>>3466832
You were arguing why somebody shouldn't buy a camera above the 24 MP mark. I explained why they would possibly want to.
>>
>>3466856
That's not the point I was making though what you said is valid when deciding what camera to buy. I was making the point that you don't need resolution larger than what a full frame 24mp sensor can offer.
>>
>>3466819
Why are you trying to argue issues in how film user use film when it isn't an issue for us? How is us doing things differently to how you do a problem? Even when we explain "work arounds" and why we don't find them to be issues? Seriously if you need the offers of digital that much than you do you. Let us do us. It's like you don't even listen to the other side. I've argued no points against digital besides chimping which is an obvious meme.

>diffraction
>soft corners
Yeah if you pixelpeep like a faggot

>only film zealots would argue that not being able to change ISO is a non-issue for everyone
Don't understand why you find problem with film user not being inconvenienced with only using a single ISO setting. Especially when we give points as to why we don't find it an issue. I think it would be neat if I could change ISO on the fly with film but it's not THAT big of a deal

>Not being able to change ISO from one exposure to the next is a limitation, whether you like it or not.
No fucking shit you mouth breathing retard I never argued that point. Like you said I've found a work around that works for me. No more needs to be said here.

>fucking up exposures
Sounds like a user error to me. Git gud faggot learn how your camera works.

>sd cards/batteries compared to film changing
it's a nonissue for me to take 20 seconds out of my like to change a canister. Like I said I don't go through more than 2 rolls on a good day.

>why brag about your FF pocket camera if you're gonna argue about jpegs on the internet
Not Kurwa but because literally what else do you do with photos besides look at them on a screen/online? Secondly I didn't even argue that I argued a consumer like yourself and I have no practical use for more resolution than a 35mm negative can hold (35m mProvia 100f or digital equivalent). You won't be printing anything larger than 16x24 inches nor do you even print images in the first (don't lie I know don't print images).
>>
>>3466868
>you pixel peep like a faggot
aka "any point made by anon that does directly agree with my notion that film=the bestest is wrong" . lmao my guy Enjoy having to use retarded settings because you can't change ISO. inb4 "BUT IT'S NOT A PROBLEM TO ME I DON'T CARE ABOUT HOW THE APERTURE AFFECTS THE PICTURE I LIKE BEING KEKED BY FILM THIS WAY!!"

>don't understand why you find problem
Not everyone wants to be locked into the same ISO setting for 36 shots. I don't know why this is hard to understand. Even something as simple as a cloud moving in front of the sun or the sun going behind a tree can dramatically change all of the light and required settings - yes I speak from experience.

>just git gud bra
Really hilarious advice from someone who's content to shoot ISO 400 at f/16 in the middle of the fucking day, lol

>Not Kurwa but because literally what else do you do with photos besides look at them on a screen/online? Secondly I didn't even argue that I argued a consumer like yourself and I have no practical use for more resolution than a 35mm negative can hold (35m mProvia 100f or digital equivalent). You won't be printing anything larger than 16x24 inches nor do you even print images in the first (don't lie I know don't print images).
You still haven't refuted the argument.

This is how I know you're a butthurt, delusional film babby: you can't argue anything but nonsense and you have to create a scenario in your mind where the person disagreeing with you is wrong, and cannot possibly see things another way. Yes, I do print, I've printed a shit ton of photographs actually.
>>
>>3466864
Unless I misread your original post you said this
> don't see a point in buying anything better than a 24mp full frame camera as you're not going to be displaying the images taken with it anywhere that even resolves that much resolution,
First of all, who are you to say? Second of all, why does it matter, third, being able to crop is a plus when used sparingly, and then there's that other point I made about some higher end cameras having better feature sets and being overall more desirable. You may not necessarily want that many megapixels, but from having shot D800's, it's not even that big a deal, it's only a positive unless you need an insane burst rate.
>>
>>3466884
>when used sparingly,
That's a dumb restriction. If a photo needs cropped, it needs cropped. What does it matter if the last 6 shots were also cropped?
>>
>>3466885
I meant that people shouldn't rely on cropping too much because then they're not getting the most they can out of the camera.
>>
>>3466895
>I meant that people shouldn't rely on cropping too much because then they're not getting the most they can out of the camera.
What's important isn't getting "the most", but enough.
>>
File: 1304530259951.png (287 KB, 581x600)
287 KB
287 KB PNG
>>3466264
>>
>>3466433
It's really not hard to fiddle with sliders, use the brush set to exposure for simple burning and dodging, and learn basic gradients. You can even get away without gradients entirely if you get a little better at brushing. You can learn that shit just playing around over the course of a weekend. Half of photography has always been in post.
>>
>>3466794
Yeah. Exactly.
And all film fags care about is muh process and muh aesthetic.
There are exceptions obviously, but the majority of film shooters here are taking awful photos of nothing while sperging out on film types.
>>
>>3466730
source?
>>
>>3466054
My nose is always blocked. And like dry so I can't clean it. I don't know what to do and I hate breathing through my mouth but I also need oxygen.
>>
>>3467163
>the majority of film shooters here are taking awful photos of nothing while sperging out on film types.
Literally Same can be said about digifags and I'd say even worse. Just look at the /rpt/ and the abundance of digi gear threads. At least the filmfags keep it in their general thread.
>>
>>3466898
Debatable. People were saying you don't need more than 6 MP back in the day, they say the same about 40+ MP now. You don't have to use all of it, but it isn't a bad habit to optimize image quality as much as you can. You just never know when you or someone else is going to love a shot and want a big print of it.
>>
>>3467340
for sure
the average sony users totally need to print 60x90 from their derivative street/travel photos
who are u kidding
the megapickles are there for pixelpeepers, and those who can't compose jack and crop like mad
>>
>>3467355
>projecting this much
Hmm, somebody's upset...
>>
>>3467355
>the average
The "average" photographer does not see massive amounts of commercial success. The average photographer does not make a large amount of massive prints.

I guess instead we just shouldn't advance technology at all, because of the strawman that is the "average" Sony shooter, or whatever you're so mad about.

>pixel peepers
Oh no...somebody cares about the quality of their images at 100%. Nobody should EVER care more than I do about image quality, that's just insane....

>those who can't compose jack
Or maybe their lens didn't reach far enough and they couldn't zoom with their feet, or maybe they wanted to make a 4:5 or 1:1 crop while maintaining plenty of information.
>>
>>3467237
You're a defect and a drag on society.
>>
>>3467500

>saw this while scrollan
>assumed it was a response to me
Nope, not this time.
>>
>>3466190
>Modern digital cameras have 2-3 stops dynamic range over the average color film.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
fucking retard
>>
>>3466193
Film has expanded recently
>>
>>3468025
>>Modern digital cameras have 2-3 stops dynamic range over the average color film.
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
>fucking retard
Film fans wildly exaggerate film's dynamic range, which is odd because it's generally published in the form of a characteristic curve by the manufacturer.

Nikon and Sony FF hit 14.7 stops. The Canon 5DIV hits 13.6. Portra is an 11 stop film, and it's not "average."

Thinking back to the days before DSLRs both color neg and B&W film were around 9-10 stops. You had the portrait films which gave you a little more. And of course you could tailor B&W development to get more. But that was average. (E6 was 6-8 stops depending on the film.)

So yeah, digital offers 2-3 stops more dynamic range than film.
>>
>>3468089
>he believes digital manufacturers when they say they have 15 stops of dynamic range

Why are digicuck cameras so much worse about blowing out the sky and other highlights than film?
>>
>>3468093
>fiilmtards think "dynamic range"=the ability to over expose
>>
>>3468096
>digicucks believe their 1 and 0s show accurate drop off of tones
>>
>>3466819
>I don't want to stop down to the diffraction fest that is f/16 so I can shoot ISO 400 in daylight, especially when i don't have to. Nor do I have to blow the aperture wide open to f/2 and deal with soft corners and having less in focus than I desire. I swear, only film zealots would argue that not being able to change ISO from one exposure to the next is somehow a non-issue for everyone just because they don't have issues with their snapshots.


Just shoot the iso film at 200 iso. As long as it isn't slide its fine as fuck to over rate film.
>>
>>3468102
Okbuddyretard
>>
>>3468111
>it's fine to under expose film

Not from experience it isn't.
>>
>>3468114
shooting 400 speed film at 200 iso is over exposing it a stop, which is fine for negative films
>>
>>3468112
>he doesn't understand how analog signals can store information better than digital sensors.
>>
>>3468093
>the 15 stop claims come from the manufacturer
They come from independent testing.

Also: during the film/digital transition I would sometimes shoot a 35mm SLR side-by-side with a DSLR. We're talking 10D and 20D days. Back then a RAW file had equal DR to typical color neg films and normally processed B&W. Back then Portra was still better, but not by much.

>>3468102
As opposed to grains and dye clouds?
>>
>>3468119
>he thinks film grain is an "analog signal" and is confusing audiotard arguments with photographic imaging
Protip: at the level of a single grain film photography is literally digital. At the level of a single pixel "digital sensors" are literally analog.
>>
>>3466248
i have one of those
>>
>>3468118
Right, I got it backwards.

Still, that requires a long exposure, which is not always desirable. That and while I could do this with film, I'd rather just lower the ISO on my camera, period.
>>
>>3468119
But that's exactly how film works. A grain is either exposed or not.

>store information better
Yeah, I'm not arguing this. Not because you're right, but because you think your preference for one type of film look is "more accurate", even though in most cases, it's not.
>>
>>3466031
Film looks better if done right
If you're doing for a hobby, convenience doesn't matter much anyways

Personally WLF are the only way I like to shoot, so that leaves me with MF film cameras, as digital ones are too expensive
>>
>>3468138
what? you take iso 400 film, its sunny outside so you set your camera to iso 200, take pictures with normal shutter speeds, suddenly it is darker, switch camera to iso 400 without changing films because it is iso 400 film

you don't need long exposures when you over expose film
>>
Film renders images better.
>>
>>3466429
I can tell you're retarded because every film camera I own with a battery lasts months or years and requires one or two batteries at most. dimwit sack of shit
>>
>>3466429
I can tell you don’t either, because there are plenty of film cameras out there which don’t require batteries.in fact it wasn’t even commonplace for batteries to be required until the 70s.
>>
>>3468149
This, there’s nothing on earth like a good WLF.
>>
Only reason to use film is the large negative sizes.
Meaning you can have big view area with long lenses.
Also movements and tonality of LF.
>>
>>3468243
There’s no reason LF would have different ‘tonality’ to MF.
>>
>>3468290
Since tonality is formed by density of grains or dye clouds in film, the larger the film size, the better the tonality.
>>
File: 1408419229800.jpg (39 KB, 426x341)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
I experimented with film and I liked it.
>>
>>3468122
Can u explain that?
>>
File: dddd75.jpg (1001 KB, 2501x1501)
1001 KB
1001 KB JPG
>>3466031
no one is using them really, 99.9999% marketshare is digital
>>
>>3468152
I meant longer exposure. Over exposure requires a longer exposure time.

I'll say it again: I could dick around with shooting ISO 200 on ISO 400 film, orrrr I could use a camera that let's me shoot at any ISO I want (and also, is able to get usable color images past ISO 800 or so)
>>
>>3468862
>I meant longer exposure. Over exposure requires a longer exposure time.

You were just bitching about shooting iso 400 film outside limiting you to f/16. I said shoot the 400 speed film at f/8, with the camera set at 200 iso. Which would be the same fucking exposure time.

>I'll say it again: I could dick around with shooting ISO 200 on ISO 400 film, orrrr I could use a camera that let's me shoot at any ISO I want (and also, is able to get usable color images past ISO 800 or so)

And your images would look like shit, because they were taken on a digicuck camera
>>
digital = cucked
film = based

its really that simple.
>>
>>3466190
nature autism being retarded as always.

i see nothing changes here.
>>
>>3466209
>film as the other anon said is like cocaine to these people
thats the shit.

went to a workshop with some top gun guy from germany. he said lots of stuff, most i forgot, but the single thing he said i recall to this very day: want to do art? go film.
>>
>>3466719
>even an old 12MP full frame can outresolve 6x7 with most films
lol
>>
>>3468885
Let's calculate how bad a film would have to be to be worse than 12 MP at 6x7:
12 MP usually means 3000*4000 pixels, so a different aspect ratio.
Let's crop 6x7" to 5,25x7" for the same aspect ratio, that makes roughly 175 mm on the longest side.
If we say one line=one pixel we need 4000 lines/175mm= 22,9 lines/mm.
I'm not aware of a film sold these days with that little resolution.
The highest available seems to be Adox CMS-20 with 800 lines/mm
>>
>>3468885
my man cruz dabbing on digislugs as always.
>>
>>3468890
Considering 35mm, film would need about 167 l/mm to equate a 24 MP sensor. I'd say we can easily get that by shooting Tmax, or Portra.
>>
>>3467168
>source?
https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/

>>3468885
>>3468890
>>3468892
As I explained in >>3466730, resolution is more complicated than that.

So I guess a more accurate way to have put it would be that a 12MP full frame digital can match/exceed 6x9 resolution *under some conditions*.

So yes, when measuring high contrast black/white line pairs, film can still dunk on digital because the nature of grain is that it’s tiny and works really well to show on/off ironically-binary resolution like that. Especially when talking about films like CMS20.

But for detail that’s not as simple as a black line on white, especially detail in color, and especially especially at higher ISO, digital’s ability to record any of 2^12^3 different shades per pixel starts to give it a definite edge. Modern cameras that can do 2^14^3 different shades at three to four times the resolution of those older full frames pull away even farther. But yes, still lose to film when you throw them up against a test chart with converging tiny black on white lines.
>>
>>3468894
Another question is:
>Can your glass even resolve details that fine?
With higher and higher pixel densities on digital cameras and the glass not getting much better, you often see pretty poor quality in 100% crops with consumer glass.
24+ MP crop sensor cameras struggle with that the most, as the lense simply isn't sharp enough and you can only use the small area of the sensor.
35mm and fullframe can get higer resolutions out of the same glass due to their larger sensor sizes, medium and large format can get even more out of lenses of the same quality.
>>
>>3468898
And of course all of this is actually irrelevant because if you’re judging the merits of one medium vs another based on how many fucking line pairs per millimeter it can resolve, you’re a deeply shitty artist.

So back to my original position: if you prefer the artistic results you get with film, film is an objectively better choice for you. For me, I vastly prefer the results I get on digital.
>>
>>3468898
You forgot an important detail:
Digital sensors aren't perfect either.
They can't get their full resolution out of low contrasts either as the photosites aren't shielded perfectly from each other so naturaly light leaks through.
The accuracy of each pixel and the digial processing behind it to convert brightness into digital information isn't perfect either.
You may be able to store 2^14 different brighnesses for each subpixel, but there is some error in them as well.
At low contrasts the light leaking through the photosites reduces the contrasts between them to a degree where it disappears into the background noise.
>>
>>3468894
Film resolution is highly correlated with target contrast. Film only achieves insane lpmm numbers in 1000:1 lab tests. To put that into perspective, at 1000:1 Velvia only records black and white, not tone or color.

In the real world I've found that 16mp about matches Velvia 50 in 35mm. By 20mp Velvia is done. 36mp about matches Velvia 50 in 6x9. By 50mp 6x9 is done.

Keep in mind that Velvia 50 is a much higher resolution film than any other color film in the real world (80 lpmm versus the next competitor at 60 lpmm).

Probably the only film that can keep up with today's 42/45/50mp FF sensors is Adox CMS 20.
>>
>>3468904
>You forgot an important detail:
>Digital sensors aren't perfect either.
>They can't get their full resolution out of low contrasts either as the photosites aren't shielded perfectly from each other so naturaly light leaks through.
If you're talking about blooming effects this only happens in extremely bright situations. Digital sensor resolution on low contrast detail is miles ahead of film.

>The accuracy of each pixel and the digial processing behind it to convert brightness into digital information isn't perfect either.
>You may be able to store 2^14 different brighnesses for each subpixel, but there is some error in them as well.
It's almost laughable that you're comparing this "error" rate to the relative imprecision of grains and dye clouds. You can't represent any where near the same number of brightness levels in an area of film the size of 1 pixel. Nor colors in an area of film the size of 4 pixels.
>>
>>3468913
I don't think that is entirely accurate as all these added together reduce a 12 MP sensors effective resolution to well below 12 million independent pixels.
Especialy since 6x7 film doesn't need to deal with lense imperfections nearly as much as fullframe digital does.

In the end, both end up having less resolution than advertised in real life conditions, but still more than enough for reasonably large prints.
>>
>>3468912
>blooming
I'm not talking about this happening on a large scale like blooming tends to happen, but about it happening on neighbouring pixels.
>you can't represent anywhere near as many brigness levels in an area of film the size of a pixel
That depends very much on the film and sensor, but that is besides the point when comparing 6x7 film with 12 MP fullframe digital as the film has much more area to work with.
>>
>>3468924
>>blooming
>I'm not talking about this happening on a large scale like blooming tends to happen, but about it happening on neighbouring pixels.
No idea where you're getting this but it doesn't matter because you can't talk your way out of the repeatable observation that digital is far better at resolving low contrast detail.

>>you can't represent anywhere near as many brigness levels in an area of film the size of a pixel
>That depends very much on the film and sensor,
No. There is no emulsion that can.

>but that is besides the point when comparing 6x7 film with 12 MP fullframe digital as the film has much more area to work with.
12mp cannot out resolve 6x7. But 40-50mp demolishes it.
>>
>>3468927
>No idea where you're getting this but it doesn't matter because you can't talk your way out of the repeatable observation that digital is far better at resolving low contrast detail.
When comparing 6x7 to fullframe it simply can't.
>No. There is no emulsion that can.
Adox CMS-20 can, look it up that shit is insane.
>12mp cannot out resolve 6x7.
That was the entire point of the discussion.
>But 40-50mp demolishes it.
That is moving goalposts, and there is no way it could keep up with even medium format CMS-20.
>>
>>3468929
>>No idea where you're getting this but it doesn't matter because you can't talk your way out of the repeatable observation that digital is far better at resolving low contrast detail.
>When comparing 6x7 to fullframe it simply can't.
Yes it can.

>>No. There is no emulsion that can.
>Adox CMS-20 can, look it up that shit is insane.
CMS-20 has very impressive resolution but also very limited dynamic range / tonal separation. It's cool for what it is but it's a bitch to work with. So no, it's not going to render as many brightness levels as a digital sensor, and certainly not within the space of a typical FF pixel.

>>12mp cannot out resolve 6x7.
>That was the entire point of the discussion.
>>But 40-50mp demolishes it.
>That is moving goalposts,
No it's not. I didn't post the claim that 12mp out resolved 6x7. I'm posting facts for both the 12mp poster and the "film is better!!!" posters.
>>
>>3469057
>yes it can
As 6x7 is multiple times larger than full frame, it has much more area to work with in order to resolve details.
>limited dynamic range
Yea, sure it isn't as high as their Silvermax, but the amount of grains it packs into an area allows it to resolve it finer.
>movng goalposts
The original point in the discussion was >>3466719 where the claim was that 12 MP would outresolve 6x7" film, wich is simply not true.
Sure, a fullframe can take on 35mm film, but it still struggles with larger formats or high resolution films.
A medium format camera using CMS-20 has an insanely high resolution, you would need to scan it at over 20000 dpi to get all the detail out of the film.
Again, not saying digital would always be worse, but film isn't dead either.
>>
>>3469094
>>yes it can
>As 6x7 is multiple times larger than full frame, it has much more area to work with in order to resolve details.
But much lower ability per square mm. You can talk all you want but high resolution FF sensors out perform 6x7 film.

>>limited dynamic range
>Yea, sure it isn't as high as their Silvermax,
No, it's not high at all. It's like worse than Velvia.

>but the amount of grains it packs into an area allows it to resolve it finer.
Black and white lines, yes. Separate tones across a brightness range, no.

>>movng goalposts
>The original point in the discussion was >>3466719 where the claim was that 12 MP would outresolve 6x7" film, wich is simply not true.
And if that poster had come back and said "well 50 can" THAT would be moving goalposts. I didn't move anything.

>A medium format camera using CMS-20 has an insanely high resolution,
>MUH ONE FILM!
You realize that CMS-20 in 120 format hasn't been available since 2017, right?
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/adox-cms-ii-20-in-120.159088/#post-2072055

Fucking hell, why are you talking about a film don't shoot? A film that right now nobody can shoot except in 35mm???

>Again, not saying digital would always be worse, but film isn't dead either.
No one said film is dead.
>>
>>3469098
>>but the amount of grains it packs into an area allows it to resolve it finer.
>Black and white lines, yes. Separate tones across a brightness range, no.
I should clarify this: CMS-20 in 35mm probably still couldn't take on a 45mp D850 or 50mp 5Ds. But in 6x7 this one film might resolve more detail. It would still have much lower DR and good but probably slightly worse tonal separation.
>>
>>3468122
no?
>>
>>3468866
Why would I want to shoot at retarded apertures to compensate for film speed? Why would I want to shoot outside the box speed of the film I'm using so I can compensate for otherwise being forced to shoot f/16 to get a proper exposure? Why the fuck would I want to over expose when i don't like the look of over exposed photographs, even *if* the highlight detail is retained? Why are you so fucking dense that you simply don't see that somebody can not want to shoot on film? I've shot dozens of rolls of film, I don't want to deal with it again unless it's B&W. Color film does nothing for me, the "look" most people insist on is not anywhere near what I desire my images to look like.
>>
>>3469108
>Why would I want to shoot at retarded apertures to compensate for film speed?
f/8
retarded aperture
pick one fag
>Why would I want to shoot outside the box speed of the film I'm using so I can compensate for otherwise being forced to shoot f/16 to get a proper exposure?
No one shoots at box speed. Box speed is like the speed limit. It is just a suggestion. Box speed is more like the speed you develop it at rather than what you shoot it at because shooting at lower ISO than box speed is always fine unless it is slide film.
>Why the fuck would I want to over expose when i don't like the look of over exposed photographs, even *if* the highlight detail is retained?
Do you even know what overexposed film looks like compared to box speed exposed film?
>Why are you so fucking dense that you simply don't see that somebody can not want to shoot on film? I've shot dozens of rolls of film, I don't want to deal with it again unless it's B&W. Color film does nothing for me, the "look" most people insist on is not anywhere near what I desire my images to look like.
Oh, so you are a fag with shit taste? You could have lead with that
>>
>>3468898
>https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/

Have you seen the shootout follow article? First two responses are people selling 4x5 gear to replace them with 12 MP digital cameras, it's crazy. But it also kind of mirrors what I thought, when is hot LF and did drum scans: the files were bigger, the scans had a lot of printing potential, but they weren't noticeably sharper, like, at all.
>>
>>3469109
>f/8
>retarded aperture
Yeah if I wanna shoot at ISO 400 in daylight, that's the aperture I need. Except I never want to shoot at that aperture, and fortunately I don't have to.

>nobody shoots at box speed
>it's always fine to over expose
I. Don't. Want. To. Over. Expose.

>Do you even know what over exposed film looks like?
See above.

>ur a fag xD
The only "fag" here is the retard (you) arguing with people over subjective desires. You're throwing a shit fit because your medium is not as infaliable as you think it is, and you're frustrated by the fact that not everyone wants to have to do a bunch of stupid shit to get film to "work", like shooting fucking ISO 400 @ f/16 in the middle of the day, on 35mm film of all things.
>>
>>3469117
>Yeah if I wanna shoot at ISO 400 in daylight, that's the aperture I need. Except I never want to shoot at that aperture, and fortunately I don't have to.
What's wrong with f/8? You can also use an ND filter or shoot at 100 iso or up your shutter speed
>I. Don't. Want. To. Over. Expose.
You literally cannot tell the difference
>See above.
reddit spacing
>The only "fag" here is the retard (you) arguing with people over subjective desires. You're throwing a shit fit because your medium is not as infaliable as you think it is, and you're frustrated by the fact that not everyone wants to have to do a bunch of stupid shit to get film to "work", like shooting fucking ISO 400 @ f/16 in the middle of the day, on 35mm film of all things.
I shoot 120, not 35mm reddit fag
>>
>>3468838
>>3469104
Sorry, didn't see the question.

A single light sensitive grain either develops or not. Grain sensitivity, size, shape, orientation, and relation to other grains will determine how many photons must strike it to cause it to develop. But there's literally a photon count where it won't develop and one more strike will cause it to develop.

This, btw, is why most of film's DR is on the highlight side, why film highlights "roll off", and why films have reciprocity failure. Grains that will already develop still absorb photons. So as the image is overexposed it takes more and more light to keep increasing the number of grains that will develop.

A single pixel on a digital sensor is an analog device that outputs electricity in proportion to the photons that strike it. It's literally a "photon bucket." That output is analogy until it is run through an analog to digital converter. This is why digital clips so hard on the highlight side.
>>
>>3469138
>That output is analogy
analog...damn it
>>
>>3469138
How does that make film digital?
>>
>>3469147
At the level of a single grain it's either black/clear, on/off, 1/0.
>>
>>3466031
What a trash thread. Literally fucking no-one is going to change their mind after hearing your super "facts and science" argument.

Filmfags will stick with film. Digicucks will stick with digital.

What a waste of fucking bits.
>>
>>3469173
>incel reply
Just have sex.
>>
>>3466799
fuck, i remember you posting that image here and absolutely loving it.
>>
>>3469173
This.

What the fuck is the point? We have this thread once a week and every time some new fucker comes along and finds another was to put their dick in the hornets’ nest. Pro tip for you: if you don’t get why people use film, fucking lurk moar newfags.
>>
>>3469098
CMS 20 is available in 35mm and 4x5
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/adox-cms-20-ii-102x127-cm-4x5-inch-50-blatt.html
>>
File: 1554955438527.png (160 KB, 700x500)
160 KB
160 KB PNG
With film no one can know you took a picture
>>
>>3469201
Can you please SilverPill me on this film stock?
>>
>>3469247
Differentfag here, hi. CMS20 is like Silvermax: a drug for grain-peepers and those who'd never waste their time enlarging any smaller than 16x20. Their resolution and dynamic range, respectively, mainly come out in relatively expensive Adox-brand developers.

Practically speaking, CMS20 is of little resolution advantage if the lens used is non-aspherical, or if the photograph is taken on a body without a mirror-up function. It outresolves lesser lenses and seems like straight-up overkill in 4x5 given that most LF glass is old and classic. Similarly, Silvermax requires good contrasty lenses or there won't be any point to recording a 1:2^14 contrast range.
>>
>>3469247
It isn't old stock, but freshly produced.
The resolution is insane, they recommend to stop down a good 50mm F/2.0 or 1.4 to 5.6-8 to get enough sharpness to make use of it in 35mm.
Downside is:
It is slow, they recommend to expose it at 16-20 ISO, it can be pushed to 40-50 ISO.
>>
>>3469247
Adox b/w filmd are very nice, CMS 20 being the best
For ISO 100, I'd rather use Rollei 80S over Silvermax; both are extremely sharp and produce very smooth tonality under right processing —contrast builds up rather quickly though

CMS, Silvermax and Fuji Acros are all pan orthochromatic emulsions, which will respond better to cold tones like blue rather than warm ones like orange
Rollei 80S will dig into IR at about 780nm; in practice, it's more like using a light orange filter like 81A all the time

Even though there are specific developers recommend by Adox and Maco for each of these films, I find that stand development in Rodinal at 1:200 will deliver outstanding results

>>3469254
>little resolution advantage if the lens used is non-aspherical, or if the photograph is taken on a body without a mirror-up function
This is true to my experience as well; luckily Mamiya floating element lenses today go for very cheap and I find them to beat every Zeiss lens that I've used
>>
>>3466035
>colloidon
it's spelled collodion
>>
>>3466799
I bet you sleep with a weighted blanket too anon.
>>
>>3466031
Film is superior to digital in multiple ways.
Especially black and white.

The only real downside is you need to have your shots drum scanned to reap the benefits, as even large format film scanned on midrange home machines is inferior, or at best, matching good digital.

Little interesting bit for digital shills, 6000 or whatever pixel wide shots are all fucking interpolated due to bayer filters and you're only getting a QUARTER at best of the advertised resolution. This is why downsampling digital makes images makes them look so much better than the fake "native" resolution output by the camera. Drum scanned black and white film is truly sharp and not interpolated.

But digital is so fast and easy, and, if spending dozens of thousands on it, good enough. In some cases digital is even superior but for consumer/pro grade stuff good film scanned right is better
>>
>>3467237
Based noselet
>>
Because film is useless. Never, never shoot on film, it's expensive (you're poor, no offence though, it's okay to be poor.), it's poisonous (my niece got anal fungus from looking at my silver broxide) and of course it damages the society. Evil beings shoot film, subhuman monkeys shoot film, really, don't ever, never even consider to do it.
>>
>>3466420

Luckily I've got my eyes almost closed and my mouth open, otherwise I would find this very confusing and offensive.
>>
>>3469932
>Little interesting bit for digital shills, 6000 or whatever pixel wide shots are all fucking interpolated due to bayer filters and you're only getting a QUARTER at best of the advertised resolution.
This is not an interesting tidbit. It's a myth that's easily disproven with a fucking resolution chart.

Of course anyone who bothered to investigate either human vision (luminance contributes far more to edge detection than color, and luminance is sampled at every pixel) or Bayer algorithms (eight neighboring pixels are sampled for color, not 3), or tests of non-Bayer sensors like Foveon or triple-sensor video cameras would be able to predict it's bullshit without even performing a test.
>>
>>3466152
>Film forces people to think and plan before the very act of pressing shutter release.

I shoot both, but this part of film photography is really enjoyable for me. I like the whole film process from shooting to development and printing. Also I still get to do the PC part of it when I scan my negs and run them thru post.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can get a lot of enjoyment with either or both.
>>
>>3466031
Analog format captures a limitless perception range compared to the binary souless format of the digital medium.
>>
>>3470404

But film is binary. Digital is actually analog.
>>
File: 1.jpg (90 KB, 852x480)
90 KB
90 KB JPG
>>3470405
Film is analogue in the manner that the black shadows don't pixelate as much compared to digital. The latter does because its binary range cannot computer it as limitlessly, resulting in pixelation and noise that strips the photo of colour and quality.
The former only relys on chemical properties and light to capture the image correctly on a physical format. The machinery also benefits it since there isn't that much digital infrastructure to capture the physical world presented in front of it. It predominately is comprised of clockwork and other gizmos to function correctly in order to process the image and as a result.

So while there may be odd noise and blur in the image format at times on an analogue camera, with the right skills and technique, you can capture details and colours that a digital camera would require a ridiculous computational degree to achieve.
>>
>>3470406
>the latter only relys*
>>
>>3470406

Nah dog, you're making shit up as you go along.

Strictly speaking, film is binary because the silver halide crystals (or the dye couples in color film) either "turn on" or they don't. The relative darkness or lightness of your subject is entirely due to how many crystals "activated". They don't graduate between different levels of black and white. They are either on, or they are off. Film is literally dithered.

Digital is analog because the sensel reacts in an analog manner to the number of photons that hit it. That analog signal is then sent through the ADC (literally, motherfucker, ANALOG to DIGITAL converter) where it is broken down into as many as 65536 levels of brightness. Totally different from film.
>>
Analog is the fucking best fuck you.

Fuck these digisoy faggots. Come in for high test photography


https://discord.gg/j8aH3vM

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width795
Image Height1200
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3470406

your mum is anal >:-(
>>
>>3470404

you're a pro-cuck. don't talk to me, I know better. tfu about your vagina faggot
>>
Good cameras are cheap. Heavy mechanical objects are fun and satisfying to use. Capturing light on a physical object with a crazy chemical reaction is pretty neat. Seeing photos for the first time weeks later after you've forgotten half the shots is fun. When done correctly you can take some shockingly high quality shots. Why not?
>>
>>3470414
>muh photodiode
>>
>>3470434
>a photo of a taxi sign on the roof of a car
>this is "soul"
>>
>tfw just sold my minolta x-700 for $80 and kind of want another one

oh well
>>
>>3470922
x570 is the thinking man's choice
>>
Instant gratification is a sin
>>
File: MVC-012F (2).jpg (63 KB, 640x480)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
People that still shoot film are just low rent reddit hipsters that aren't actually cool enough to have discovered vintage digital yet.

Filmlets little cuck canisters intimidated by my big, floppy disk

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: images.jpg (5 KB, 232x217)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>3471059
>vintage digital
>>
File: 1400784532195.jpg (318 KB, 1000x710)
318 KB
318 KB JPG
>>3471059
>Filmlets little cuck canisters intimidated by my big, floppy disk
u wot m8?
>>
>>3466031
>It's the current year!
>>
>>3466429
Many films cameras don't require batteries. Many don't require batteries apart from a watch battery that lasts ages
>>
>>3470414
Huh, looks like I learned something new.

Question; film is a physical medium though. Wouldn't the transfer of all that ADC stuff to the film be an analog property though? Like painting a picture? Its a traditional/analog medium. Would it be any different?
>>
>>3469244
>we live in a circus
>>
>>3470922
>tfw got X-700 plus 60-120 mm f/2.8 lense for free
>>
to make you mad
>>
>>3466152
>Work = digital FF, Personal craft = whatever I need to get things the way I visualize them.

Agreed. I love shooting film myself but outside of a few applications it doesn't make any sense for most working photogs anymore.


>>3466275
>>3466278
You're right about tilt shift lenses not being the same as camera movements, but on what planet does film have higher exposure latitude than modern digital RAW files? You may be able to overexpose a few stops on some film stocks with decent results, but I promise you that you can definitely overexpose film to the point of ruining it pretty easily. Not to mention that underexposure means a useless photo on film whereas digital allows you to pull detail from shadows without ruining them, which is ultimately a lot more useful. Also, dynamic range is definitely better on digital now. It was a huge achievement for Kodak to be able to claim that Portra can capture up to 14 stops of DR. This is a pretty easy thing to accomplish on nearly every Sony and Nikon FF body you can buy today. You have to make the jump to 120 to even begin to compete with the DR of current digital sensor technology. Just because film is more difficult to use does not make it a superior medium. It's just a different one. Working harder =/= working smarter

>>3466305
>MF digital is closer to 4x5
Yeah maybe if you're working with a Hasselblad 400c MS or Phase One XF system that has a full frame MF sensor. Even then you're just getting close. 4x5 sheets of Portra resolve a metric shit ton of detail. Use a drum scanner and you'll have noticeably higher IQ than digital MF.
>>
>>3472092
>You have to make the jump to 120 to even begin to compete with the DR of current digital sensor technology.
Dynamic range on film is the same from minox to 20x24".
>>
>>3466031
It looks prettier to me for some reason.
>>
>>3466202
In 20-30 years the digital stuff will see a reeurgence because of nostalgia, just like anything else does. But it’ll be consumer stuff like original gen1 iPhones.
>>
>>3472981
Heh, kleenex electronics, there won't be any functional one left.
It's not just nostalgia. People enjoy using a tool that's not disposable shit. And film still looks better for some reason.
>>
>>3466152
I'm a filmfag but that argument is stupid. The reason I shoot film is because
1. I'm bored to edit pictures
2. I like how film looks
3. I don't have shekels for a high end Fuji mirrorless & high end PC that will give me similar to film results with minimal clicks
>>
File: maxresdefault (18).jpg (143 KB, 1348x900)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>3466031
for the same reason people like driving manual transmission even if its slower (vs double clutch)

because its fun
>>
>>3466031
Why the fuck are we still having this thread every day?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.